An Analysis of the Environmental Impacts of Genetically-Modified Crops

Christofer Smith • December 17, 2024 • 1306 Words

INTRODUCTION

As the U.S. Food & Drug Administration reported, the likelihood that the edible products Americans consume consist partially of genetically-modified (GM) crop products is highly probable. Thus, it is imperative that we are aware of the environmental impacts derived from their usage (“GMO Crops, Animal Food, and Beyond”). Since the first extensive commercial adoption of transgenic crops in 1996, quantifiable data on the environmental impact correlated to GM crops is available, particularly in their role in affecting herbicide usage, as retrospective reviews by agricultural economists have found (Brookes and Barfoot). This data must be analyzed, since, as recorded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, GM crop usage is rising, and modified variants of crops like soybeans and corn now account for the vast majority of planted acres of the species’ entireties (Dodson). Hindering such, however, is the fact that, as one governmental advisory organization has determined, the availability and transparency of data is not adequate for all comprehensive analyses (Gennaro et al. 23). Additionally, the motivations and biases behind the funding of older research on herbicides, as found by experts in agricultural economics, influenced the information that was released (Barnor et al.). Despite these limitations, the usage of genetically-modified crops undeniably leads to tangible environmental impacts.

THE SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF GENETICALLY-MODIFIED CROPS

Transgenic crops have both prevented and contributed to detrimental environmental impacts. The Center for Food Safety (CFS), a known advocacy group that possesses over two decades of experience in communicating the ecological concerns of GM crops, conveys the negative facet of this duality. They argue that GM crops “have a strong tendency to pass along traits that could create more persistent, more damaging weeds” through transferring traits, like herbicide tolerance, that promote the development of superweeds, like those which are herbicide tolerant (HT). Additionally, this unwanted gene-flow facilitates “biological contamination of wild species, organic crops and other agricultural products” with irreversible results (“GE Food & the Environment”). This is corroborated by the research and monitoring of a team of fifteen environmental groups which agrees with the CFS’s assertions on superweeds and contamination. Additionally, they contend that increased herbicide use can be attributed to HT crops (“Environmental Impacts”). In contrast, a metastudy authored by two agricultural economists concluded that “the adoption of GM… technology has reduced pesticide spraying by 775.4 million kg,” an equivalent emission reduction to that of “removing 15.27 million cars” from roads, after analyzing over two decades of studies. Moreover, they state that HT crops continued to deliver net positive environmental gains and that, in tandem with insect-resistant crops, they continued “to provide substantial net environmental benefits” (Brookes and Barfoot). Also in support of GM crops are affiliates of Georg August University of Göttingen, whose meta-analysis found that “the average agronomic… benefits of GM crops are large and significant,” stating that “on average, GM technology… has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37% [and] increased crop yields by 22%” (Klümper and Qaim). These differing perspectives demonstrate that there are complexities behind the environmental impacts of GM crops that must be considered holistically to determine the extent of transgenic crops’ benefit. They also reveal the necessity for more decisive data, which, as discovered by advisors to the European Union, was a challenge. They reported that “transparency and access to data [was] not adequate” during their comprehensive assessment of transgenic crops (Gennaro et al. 23). Despite the challenges associated with research, nonprofits and metastudies can both confirm that genetically-modified crops affect the environment. They differ, however, in whether said impacts are beneficial or detrimental.

THE SPECIFIC ROLE OF HERBICIDES

Herbicides, a facet of the complexities that transgenic crops involve, enact undeniable environmental impacts. This was demonstrated and graphed by four professors from credible universities, including the Department of Agricultural Economics of Kansas State University and the Department of Economics and Center for Agricultural and Rural Development of Iowa State University. Their research, spanning more than a decade of American data, connected the introduction of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans to an induced increase in glyphosate-based herbicide usage (Perry et al.). This aligns closely with the CFS’s findings which explain why this has happened — they state that, in order to “control herbicide resistant weeds, farmers are now spraying more toxic herbicides” (“GE Food & the Environment”). This is concerning because, as scientists and assistants from the Pesticide Residue Laboratory of the CSIR-National Environmental Engineering Research Institute found, “once glyphosate is degraded in the environment it results in the formation of… carbon dioxide and decreases the pH of water” while also imploring that glyphosate “should not be released in the environment since it is harmful to marine organisms, with long-term impact” (Gandhi et al.). This impact on nearby water is further bolstered by a historical metastudy of over 1,600 international references performed by associates of two public universities in Mexico, which asserts that glyphosate’s solubility allows it “to quickly pollute bodies of water” (Fernández-Peña et al. 9). These studies exhibit correspondence between herbicide usage and harm imparted onto the environments that see their application. This disparity is integral to why widespread genetically-modified soybean adoption is environmentally problematic. Data on herbicides’ environmental impacts, particularly that which is older, can be misleading, however. As a meta-analysis authored by doctors of agricultural economics of the North Dakota State University’s Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics attested, an increasing majority of new data opposes the sentiments that “early research on the subject… done by private and public sector researchers” held, where they were “strongly indicating how GBHs are safe for humans, animals and the environment” (Barnor et al.). Despite previously-existing biases, an array of documents and studies are in agreement that available data illustrates definitive negative impacts associated with herbicide use, which can be correlated to introducing glyphosate-tolerant soybeans.

SOLUTIONS TO THE ISSUES RELATED TO GENETICALLY-MODIFIED CROPS

Contrary to negative impacts of genetically-modified crops, various methods can be employed to mitigate the harmful impacts of their use and the herbicide usage that modified soybeans have brought. This was elaborated by a team of researchers from the Department of Biosystems and Technology of the Swedish University of Agricultural Science.. Their study argued that through “the efficient use of nutrients and reducing the risk of pollution by non-use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides,” the strategy of diversifying cropping systems can increase sustainability and biodiversity on the farm-sized scale (Rodriguez et al.). Moreover, crop rotation, as found by affiliates of both the College of Forestry and the Walnut Research Institute in Guiyang, offers “multiple benefits to both farmers and the environment” by reducing the necessity for synthetic fertilization and promoting efficient resource usage (Zou et al.). These strategies can be combined in the more comprehensive methods of integrated weed management (IWM), or the “reliance on multiple weed management approaches that are firmly underpinned by ecological principles,” as described by a team of five scientists who were associated with collegiate environmental science departments. They state that IWM incorporates known tactics and strategies, like crop rotation and diversification, to prevent herbicide-resistant weeds while balancing negative environmental impacts (Mortensen et al. 81). By preventing weeds from forming herbicide resistance, these methods reduce reliance on herbicide application while allowing for the amplification of environmental benefits, thus helping to solve the core issues with transgenic crops. Crop diversification, however, is hindered by “limited access to knowledge, technology and markets for minor crops, and concerns about the consistency of policies” (Rodriguez et al.). Additionally, “several trends indicate that the public support needed for IWM research and extension [was] declining,” thus resulting in poor public understanding surrounding integrated weed management previously (Mortensen et al. 82). Regardless, researchers and scientists alike can concur that there exist multiple strategies to mitigate the detrimental effects of genetically-modified crop farming that allow its true benefits to prevail.

CONCLUSION

While transgenic crops support environmental benefits, issues pertaining to their usage, like superweed development, must be addressed. Techniques like integrated weed management can mitigate harm to feed humanity while not detrimenting the world we are indebted to protect.

Works Cited

Barnor, Kodjo, et al. “The Role of Funding on Research and Science: The Impact of Glyphosate Herbicides on Health and the Environment.” Journal of Policy Modeling, vol. 45, no. 1, Jan. 2023, pp. 103–20. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2023.01.001. Accessed 3 Dec. 2024.

Brookes, Graham, and Peter Barfoot. “Environmental Impacts of Genetically Modified (GM) Crop Use 1996–2018: Impacts on Pesticide Use and Carbon Emissions.” GM Crops & Food, vol. 11, no. 4, July 2020, pp. 215–41, https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2020.1773198. Accessed 2 Dec. 2024.

Dodson, Laura. “Recent Trends in GE Adoption.” USDA.gov, United States Department of Agriculture, 26 July 2024, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-united-states/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption/. Accessed 5 Dec. 2024.

“Environmental Impacts.” Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, The Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, https://cban.ca/gmos/issues/environmental-impacts/. Accessed 9 Dec. 2024.

Fernández-Peña, María de Lourdes, et al. “Impacts of Glyphosate (Roundup®) on the Environment and on Human Health.” Agrociencia, vol. 57, no. 4, May 2023, pp. 836–59. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.47163/agrociencia.v57i4.2844. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.

“GE Food & the Environment.” Center for Food Safety, Center for Food Safety, https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/311/ge-foods/ge-food-and-the-environment. Accessed 2 Dec. 2024.

Gennaro, Andrea, et al. “Assessment of the Outcomes of the Project ‘Risk Assessment of Genetically Engineered Organisms in the EU and Switzerland’ (RAGES).” EFSA Supporting Publications, vol. 17, no. 7, July 2020, pp. 1–31. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2020.en-1890. Accessed 21 Nov. 2024.

“GMO Crops, Animal Food, and Beyond.” FDA.gov, U.S. Food & Drug Administration, 5 Mar. 2024, https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/gmo-crops-animal-food-and-beyond. Accessed 2 Dec. 2024.

Klümper, Wilhelm, and Matin Qaim. “A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops.” PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 11, Nov. 2014, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111629. Accessed 16 Dec. 2024.

Mortensen, David A., et al. “Navigating a Critical Juncture for Sustainable Weed Management.” BioScience, vol. 62, no. 1, Jan. 2012, pp. 75–84. ResearchGate, https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.1.12. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.

Perry, Edward D., et al. “Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in U.S. Maize and Soybeans.” Science Advances, vol. 2, no. 8, Aug. 2016, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600850. Accessed 2 Dec. 2024.

Rodriguez, Carolina, et al. “Sustainability of Diversified Organic Cropping Systems—Challenges Identified by Farmer Interviews and Multi-Criteria Assessments.” Frontiers in Agronomy, vol. 3, Sept. 2021, https://doi.org/10.3389/fagro.2021.698968. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.

Zou, Yuzhu, et al. “Crop Rotation and Diversification in China: Enhancing Sustainable Agriculture and Resilience.” Agriculture, vol. 14, no. 9, Aug. 2024, pp. 1465–65. MDPI, https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14091465. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse